Poll: Bring Janeway back?

[teya]

I strongly disagree. We already have too much of that in certain series, not to mention in daily life as well. Star Trek is about adventures and exploring space, not a soap opera of dying and grief.

What sci-fi is really good at is exploring contemporary issues. This is a contemporary issue.

But, Lynx, I know I'm not as experienced in the pain of losing someone as you are. You're the expert on this--you've said it so many times to me, it's been permanently imprinted on my brain. You know what it's like to lose someone. I have no clue.

So take my opinion as the uninformed thing that it is, and move on.

PS: To those who don't know us, Lynx has been telling me that I'm an idiot about this for 8 years now. For the record, I'm a widow.

I'm very dissapointed with your reply in this matter. It was rude and unnecessary. I expressed an opinion about what I want to see and don't want to see in Star Trek, there was nothing personal in it.

I thought that we had made up our differencies years ago and what I can see, we have got along pretty well for a very long time.

So why this sudden hostility?

And what I can remember, I have expressed my understanding for your loss of a beloved one many times so please don't accuse me of things I haven't done or point me out as some kind of monster without emotions because I'm not

Every time we've had this discussion, on this board or on any others, you shut me down when I make that suggestion, you make it clear you consider my opinion without merit, without background, and in doing so--since you do know my background--you are declaring me so cold and heartless that I'd want to relive that over and over.

You've said it plainly, you've said it obliquely. You've never changed your tune.

This is no different than any other subject we disagree on: you are the expert, I am the idiot. Doesn't matter if it's Kes's lifespan, the way people deal with death, Seven of Nine, or Chakotay's backstory. You are the expert, I am the idiot.

You've made that abundantly clear.

Except, well, I don't believe you. And so, every time the subject comes up, I'll keep restating my opinion, whether you like it or not.

 

[Thrawn]

This is no different than any other subject we disagree on: you are the expert, I am the idiot. Doesn't matter if it's Kes's lifespan, the way people deal with death, Seven of Nine, or Chakotay's backstory. You are the expert, I am the idiot.

You've made that abundantly clear.

It's not just you. He thinks we're all idiots. Or seems to, at any rate. I still haven't read so much as an acknowledgment that there are valid reasons to disagree with his preferences. Makes arguing fairly frustrating.

 

[Lynx]

What sci-fi is really good at is exploring contemporary issues. This is a contemporary issue.

But, Lynx, I know I'm not as experienced in the pain of losing someone as you are. You're the expert on this--you've said it so many times to me, it's been permanently imprinted on my brain. You know what it's like to lose someone. I have no clue.

So take my opinion as the uninformed thing that it is, and move on.

PS: To those who don't know us, Lynx has been telling me that I'm an idiot about this for 8 years now. For the record, I'm a widow.

I'm very dissapointed with your reply in this matter. It was rude and unnecessary. I expressed an opinion about what I want to see and don't want to see in Star Trek, there was nothing personal in it.

I thought that we had made up our differencies years ago and what I can see, we have got along pretty well for a very long time.

So why this sudden hostility?

And what I can remember, I have expressed my understanding for your loss of a beloved one many times so please don't accuse me of things I haven't done or point me out as some kind of monster without emotions because I'm not

Every time we've had this discussion, on this board or on any others, you shut me down when I make that suggestion, you make it clear you consider my opinion without merit, without background, and in doing so--since you do know my background--you are declaring me so cold and heartless that I'd want to relive that over and over.

You've said it plainly, you've said it obliquely. You've never changed your tune.

This is no different than any other subject we disagree on: you are the expert, I am the idiot. Doesn't matter if it's Kes's lifespan, the way people deal with death, Seven of Nine, or Chakotay's backstory. You are the expert, I am the idiot.

You've made that abundantly clear.

Except, well, I don't believe you. And so, every time the subject comes up, I'll keep restating my opinion, whether you like it or not.

You are exaggerating things and twisting them to something they were never supposed to be.

When the issue of seeing Kes age and die comes up, I state my opinion, no matter if it is you, our common "friends" at the startrek.com forum (who have their special reasons for wanting such a scenario) or Mr Johnson next door. It's not aimed at you in any way.

As for Chakotay's background, I did mention casually in one thread that I found his background interesting and was accused for being an Indian hater or racist despite the fact that I've expressed my sympathy for the American Indians several times, not to mention all the times I've criticized the "Sky Spirits" rubbisgh in "Tattoo", stating that I would have liked to see a more realistic background for Chakotay.

As for Seven Of Nine, you can't accuse me for trashing the character in any way. If there has been some critical remarks in rrecent years, it's not worse than some critical remarks I've written about Kim, neelix or other Star Trek characters.

I have never accused you for being cold and heartless and I don't consider you cold and heartless either. I've just stated my objections to the "Kes death scenario" and it has nothing to do with you personally.

There are still some things in Star Trek we might disagree about but let us avoid to make it personal in any way.

 

[Lynx]

This is no different than any other subject we disagree on: you are the expert, I am the idiot. Doesn't matter if it's Kes's lifespan, the way people deal with death, Seven of Nine, or Chakotay's backstory. You are the expert, I am the idiot.

You've made that abundantly clear.

It's not just you. He thinks we're all idiots. Or seems to, at any rate. I still haven't read so much as an acknowledgment that there are valid reasons to disagree with his preferences. Makes arguing fairly frustrating.

Please stay out of this. If you have an issue with me, lets discuss it via a PM or somewhere else. Thank you.

 

[Thrawn]

This is no different than any other subject we disagree on: you are the expert, I am the idiot. Doesn't matter if it's Kes's lifespan, the way people deal with death, Seven of Nine, or Chakotay's backstory. You are the expert, I am the idiot.

You've made that abundantly clear.

It's not just you. He thinks we're all idiots. Or seems to, at any rate. I still haven't read so much as an acknowledgment that there are valid reasons to disagree with his preferences. Makes arguing fairly frustrating.

Please stay out of this. If you have an issue with me, lets discuss it via a PM or somewhere else. Thank you.

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a commentary on your posts. You haven't once admitted there are valid reasons for preferring Janeway dead. And I'm hardly the only one expressing frustration with your posts around here over the past couple days.

 

[Lynx]

It's not just you. He thinks we're all idiots. Or seems to, at any rate. I still haven't read so much as an acknowledgment that there are valid reasons to disagree with his preferences. Makes arguing fairly frustrating.

Please stay out of this. If you have an issue with me, lets discuss it via a PM or somewhere else. Thank you.

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a commentary on your posts. You haven't once admitted there are valid reasons for preferring Janeway dead. And I'm hardly the only one expressing frustration with your posts around here over the past couple days.

I haven't done that because I see no valid reasons for preferring Janeway dead. And yes, there are 4-5 people here who don't like my opinions when it comes to deaths and character destruction .

 

[JD]

I'm with you Thrawn. I can't tell you how many times I've started to write a post only to decide that I didn't want to go down that road with Lynx.

 

[Thrawn]

I haven't done that because I see no valid reasons for preferring Janeway dead.

So clearly you think we are all idiots. Or deranged. Or something. How else are we supposed to take this comment? Our opinions are invalid? What does that even mean?

 

[teya]

When the issue of seeing Kes age and die comes up, I state my opinion, no matter if it is you, our common "friends" at the startrek.com forum (who have their special reasons for wanting such a scenario) or Mr Johnson next door. It's not aimed at you in any way.

When you start saying that someone has "their special reasons for wanting such a scenario," you're claiming to be able to read their minds, just as you've claimed such things about the motivations of the writers on the show, of the novels, and of the actors at times.

YOU DO NOT KNOW OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVATIONS.

When you claim you do, your posts come off as arrogant and dismissive.

It's pretty obvious that I'm not the only one to get such an impression.

I'll skip over how you've *never* trashed Seven of Nine.

 

[JustKate]

I haven't done that because I see no valid reasons for preferring Janeway dead. And yes, there are 4-5 people here who don't like my opinions when it comes to deaths and character destruction .

Lynx, I am not making fun of you, I swear - I'm just trying to understand. Are you literally saying that you can imagine NO literary or dramatic reason why it might be dramatically valid for a major character to die? I'm not saying a reason you like or that you agree with - I'm asking if you really and truly cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with you unless they secretly hate Janeway or something like that?

If that's the case, are you that way only about Trek? Or about everything you read or watch? Again, not making fun of you, I'm just trying to understand.

 

[Lynx]

When the issue of seeing Kes age and die comes up, I state my opinion, no matter if it is you, our common "friends" at the startrek.com forum (who have their special reasons for wanting such a scenario) or Mr Johnson next door. It's not aimed at you in any way.

When you start saying that someone has "their special reasons for wanting such a scenario," you're claiming to be able to read their minds, just as you've claimed such things about the motivations of the writers on the show, of the novels, and of the actors at times.

YOU DO NOT KNOW OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVATIONS.

When you claim you do, your posts come off as arrogant and dismissive.

It's pretty obvious that I'm not the only one to get such an impression.

I'll skip over how you've *never* trashed Seven of Nine.

You know very well what I mean about their special reasons since you've been posting there a long time and also have your disputes with them.

I've never stated that I never trashed Seven Of Nine, there was a time when I really disliked that character, I admit that. But that was something in the past and I was naive enough to believe that it would stay there.

I don't know if your new-born hostility against me (including that nasty PM with the accusations of racism) has something to do with your conflict with another poster on the startrek.com forum who I happen to have a good relationship with but I would be happy if you keep me out of that.

Thrawn wrote:

So clearly you think we are all idiots. Or deranged. Or something. How else are we supposed to take this comment? Our opinions are invalid? What does that even mean?

It means that I'm not allowed to have an opinion which differs from yours because then you start with personal attacks.

 

[Lynx]

I haven't done that because I see no valid reasons for preferring Janeway dead. And yes, there are 4-5 people here who don't like my opinions when it comes to deaths and character destruction .

Lynx, I am not making fun of you, I swear - I'm just trying to understand. Are you literally saying that you can imagine NO literary or dramatic reason why it might be dramatically valid for a major character to die? I'm not saying a reason you like or that you agree with - I'm asking if you really and truly cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with you unless they secretly hate Janeway or something like that?

If that's the case, are you that way only about Trek? Or about everything you read or watch? Again, not making fun of you, I'm just trying to understand.

No, it's not like that.

In one of my early posts about this "Janeway issue", I did state that there were situations in which I could see reasons for killing off a main character in certain stories. But then some of the nice people around here started to ridicule that, twisting what I had written into "Lynx just don't want his special favorites to be killed off, otherwise it's OK" so I decided to go for a non-compromizing attitude here. You have to be very careful with what you write on the Trek forums because everything you write can be twisted, turned to something it wasn't supposed to be and used against you.

I hope that I have answered your question here, otherwise feel free to come back with further questions about this issue.

 

[teya]

When the issue of seeing Kes age and die comes up, I state my opinion, no matter if it is you, our common "friends" at the startrek.com forum (who have their special reasons for wanting such a scenario) or Mr Johnson next door. It's not aimed at you in any way.

When you start saying that someone has "their special reasons for wanting such a scenario," you're claiming to be able to read their minds, just as you've claimed such things about the motivations of the writers on the show, of the novels, and of the actors at times.

YOU DO NOT KNOW OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVATIONS.

When you claim you do, your posts come off as arrogant and dismissive.

It's pretty obvious that I'm not the only one to get such an impression.

I'll skip over how you've *never* trashed Seven of Nine.

You know very well what I mean about their special reasons since you've been posting there a long time and also have your disputes with them.

Lynx, you've not only claimed to know the motivations of posters, but also of the producers, writers, novel writers, and actors. And every time, it's that they "hate" the fans of a character (either Kes or Janeway) or hate the character or want to destroy the series or want to...

Again.

YOU DO NOT KNOW OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVATIONS.

I've never stated that I never trashed Seven Of Nine,

From your post above:

As for Seven Of Nine, you can't accuse me for trashing the character in any way.

I don't know if your new-born hostility against me (including that nasty PM with the accusations of racism) has something to do with your conflict with another poster on the startrek.com forum who I happen to have a good relationship with but I would be happy if you keep me out of that.

I don't use the term racism or racist, so whatever you read into that, is in your imagination. I was simply curious as to why you'd gone back on your former loathing for how that character's background was presented. When you say something that contradicts what you've said before, it sparks my curiosity.

But it's also against the rules here to make PMs public without permission, so you've just broken a rule. Good luck with that.

As to whatever the hell you're talking about regarding another poster, whatever you're doing I'm not a part of. And whatever whoever-you're-talking-about is doing, I'm not a part of.

I try to stay out of this playground nonsense.

 

[Lynx]

^^
The word "trashing" is present time which meant that you can't accuse me for trashing the character now or in the recent years.

And yes, I would be happy if I was kept out of "playground nonsense" as well.

 

[Thrawn]

Thrawn wrote:

So clearly you think we are all idiots. Or deranged. Or something. How else are we supposed to take this comment? Our opinions are invalid? What does that even mean?

It means that I'm not allowed to have an opinion which differs from yours because then you start with personal attacks.

Are you familiar with the term "non sequitor"?

You said "there are no valid reasons for preferring a dead Janeway". That means, directly translated, "Thrawn - your opinion is invalid".

That has nothing to do with me personally attacking you. You are calling my opinion invalid. That's you personally attacking me.


I have said several times, including immediately upon reading your initial posts in the first thread about this two months ago, that I appreciate your perspective and understand your opinion; I simply disagree. That was never anything I objected to. There's a wealth of difference between that and "Thrawn - your opinion is invalid."

 

[JustKate]

No, it's not like that.

In one of my early posts about this "Janeway issue", I did state that there were situations in which I could see reasons for killing off a main character in certain stories. But then some of the nice people around here started to ridicule that, twisting what I had written into "Lynx just don't want his special favorites to be killed off, otherwise it's OK" so I decided to go for a non-compromizing attitude here. You have to be very careful with what you write on the Trek forums because everything you write can be twisted, turned to something it wasn't supposed to be and used against you.

I hope that I have answered your question here, otherwise feel free to come back with further questions about this issue.

Ohhhh-kaaaayyy...so let's leave Janeway (and Kes) out of it.

Under what conditions would you consider it dramatically understandable (even if it's not your personal preference) to kill off a major Trek character?

For example, I know some people dislike the way Kirk died, but I'm OK with it because (how to put this delicately!)...because realistically Kirk can't be in that many more things anyway, at least not the Shatner Kirk, and really, I think Kirk himself would prefer to die the way he died rather than of old age. He never was a go-out-quietly kind of guy. You?

And to use a non-Trek reference that's been used before because it's just so darned apt, I love the M*A*S*H episode in which Henry Blake dies, even though I get all teary-eyed every time. It just reminds me, much more vividly than the death of bit characters, of the cost of war, and it's simply a wonderful, sad, touching, important TV moment. You?

Or if these examples don't appeal to you, feel free to come up with something else. You're of course free to continue taking a hard stance on this, but since that's not really how you feel, at least not 100 percent, why not argue about your real feelings? I can't speak for the past, but if you really aren't quite as absolute on this as you've sounded in this thread, then your opionions have been slightly twisted, but this time by you yourself. Or so it seems to me, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[teya]

And yes, I would be happy if I was kept out of "playground nonsense" as well.

Well, since I am not a part of it, I have no idea who you're talking about (although if I cared enough I could probably guess), so I'm really not sure what you think I have to do with this.

Here's a suggestion: If you don't want to be part of the nonsense, stay out of it.

But, since it's patently obvious that you're not going to change your tune, keep singing. I'm sure that every here knows by now that any description by you of other people's motivations and reasons for doing things are all in your own imagination.

Your favorite character is a telepath.

You are not.

 

[JB2005]

Seems like we've rather exhausted the Janeway-Dead vs Janeway Alive debate now then...so what have we learned? Some people want her to stay dead, some people want her to come back and some people just don't give a monkeys...

 

[Lynx]

Thrawn wrote:

So clearly you think we are all idiots. Or deranged. Or something. How else are we supposed to take this comment? Our opinions are invalid? What does that even mean?

It means that I'm not allowed to have an opinion which differs from yours because then you start with personal attacks.

Are you familiar with the term "non sequitor"?

You said "there are no valid reasons for preferring a dead Janeway". That means, directly translated, "Thrawn - your opinion is invalid".

That has nothing to do with me personally attacking you. You are calling my opinion invalid. That's you personally attacking me.

You're twisting my words and making them something which they weren't supposed to be.

I guess I've should have written something like "Forgive me for my sins, I have had the wrong opinion in the Janeway case and I've been such an arrogant fool claiming that I don't see any reasons for a dead Janeway. Of course, Thrawn is right".

Happy now?

 

[Thrawn]

Thrawn wrote:
It means that I'm not allowed to have an opinion which differs from yours because then you start with personal attacks.

Are you familiar with the term "non sequitor"?

You said "there are no valid reasons for preferring a dead Janeway". That means, directly translated, "Thrawn - your opinion is invalid".

That has nothing to do with me personally attacking you. You are calling my opinion invalid. That's you personally attacking me.

You're twisting my words and making them something which they weren't supposed to be.

I guess I've should have written something like "Forgive me for my sins, I have had the wrong opinion in the Janeway case and I've been such an arrogant fool claiming that I don't see any reasons for a dead Janeway. Of course, Thrawn is right".

Happy now?

Now who's twisting words?

There's no such thing as a "wrong opinion". Or, for that matter, a right one. I'm not expecting you to agree with me. I'm expecting you to respect that I am an intelligent person that happens to hold a different perspective. I have given you that consideration; I see no evidence you have given it to me. Or anyone that disagrees with you.

I explain why I disagree. You inform me why I'm wrong. There is a distinction; I'm sorry you can't see that.